September 9, 2006

I wonder what brainstorming went into the choice of the word "yank," which seems to be roundly favored by those who want to pressure ABC to withdraw its docu-drama "Path to 9/11." You know how the Democrats are obsessed with framing.

Yank! It'll make censorship seem positively patriotic -- the Yanks are coming! -- and kinda sportsmanlike -- how about those Yanks?

In the previous post thread I said that there were 500 prescreening DVD's out there. I was wrong, Hugh Hewitt, says that he has 1 of 900 copies. How can the Clinton's expect to put the genie back into the bottle?

For a law professor, you are sure sloppy with the definition of censorship and seem unconcerned about the issues of the slander that are raised by this docudrama especially considering the considerable space you have given to ridiculing those who believe conspiracy theories recently.

It seems to me, that when so many people (even the President and his closest advisors) are willing to believe so many unsupported and poorly sourced things about issues surrounding 9/11 and the war on terror, broadcasting a show that blends fact and fiction and presents outright falsehoods as supported by the 9/11 commission report, is the height of irresponsibility.

Ann: You're off the script--those aren't slams, that's the bare simple truth! Obviously it can't be wrong to say it if it's the TRUTH, right? And of course sometimes it might not be the actual physical for-real truth, but it's true in more of a metaphysical sense, sort of a "reality-truth" if you will, in that it's a true description if not any actual truth that may have occurred in the base reality (which as we all know depends on the observer as much as on the observed!)

I think the Clintons' goal at this point is not to put the genie back in the bottle but to delegitimize the series as a whole. Media savvy as they are, I think they know they don't have much chance of wiping the whole thing out so they are trying to influence the perception of the series so that it comes to be regarded as a partisan job.

It sounds to me like the problem they have with the series is not with a scene or two but with the larger picture that emerges of the Clinton White House as careless and indifferent when it came to the growing terror threat. Of course that dramatizes the Dems' biggest weakness--the perception that they aren't serious enough on national defense to be trusted in the post-9/11 era.

I think the current Clinton PR offensive is less about altering the content of the series or trying to get it taken off than it is about marginalizing it. If the public perceives the series as a piece of partisan propaganda, the Clinton-Berger crowd will have acheived what they set out to do.

The hypocrisy being displayed today -- eg, Freder here -- is pretty funny. It's too easy to name other documentaries and docu-dramas that you didn't yell about. Please, stop embarrassing yourselves. Or, okay, embarrass the hell out of yourselves. Wander about all day screaming, stumbling about with your pants down around your ankles. But don't expect me not to point and laugh.

I just love hearing Frederson and the left get all moralistic about slander. You've been slandering the President, the military and the country, to one degree or other, for the last 6 years. Talk about Fahrenheit 9/11! Call the firemen, Sandy and Bill have a pile of tapes and documents to burn.

Look, I've been critical in the past when people have complained about censorship when all that was happening was criticism, that is, more speech. But this is promoting censorship, trying to prevent the other speaker from speaking.

1. Why use Berger as the point person? Albright would seem like a much better candidate. as SecState, she was supposed to be the talker, not the doer, so her role in everything is much more circumspect. Similarly, Berger's theft of very sensitive documents intended to coverup Clinton shortcomings on terrorism, makes him the worst person to front the Yank effort.

As for Yank, I have a show biz image of the bad performer who gets yanked off the stage. "Get the hook!" doesn't ring well here. yankpullcensorwithdrawpostponecancel

Didn't Harry Reid make not so subtle threats about ABCs broadcast licence?

So is that the actual main point? If so -- linkies would be helpful.

I would guess that thoughtful discussion would contemplate stuff like public airwaves & licenses, and the role of politicians and corporations, ect...

But I believe Berger doesn't have a government position right now - yes?

And so far I've seen a lot of comments on this subect - but much of it is about people going on and on about being upset that citizens are calling ABC and then arguing about FOX news and the NYTimes and who's liberal and who's conservative, blah, ect. blah. And the summary seems to be "You all should just shut up!"

Well, that's an different argument. And it certainly is not a complaint about state censorship.

Geoduck: So you're promoting a narrow definition of censorship, limited to when the government directly prevents the speech? Not when a powerful group pressures the speaker to shut up? Even when they allude to the Communications Act and try to imply that there will be consequences? Are you going to stick to that definition when the tables are turned? If not, you hypocrit! If so, you're turning your back on liberal values. Pathetic!

Geoducks2 and monkeyboy said... Didn't Harry Reid make not so subtle threats about ABCs broadcast licence?

yes

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Read Rule 11 some time. I don't know if you're a lawyer, but we do have a little thing called professional ethics. Hard to believe, I know. But true.

um. not a lawyer!

But what is your point about "professionalo ethics?" As a individual citizens brings a suit - it's not about the lawyer.

It's about an individual's complaint.

And after reading a lot of civil cases in 19th century case law - i can tell you that lots, and lots of Americans brought craaaazy cases about slander and other stuff. Our legal system seems to have survived just fine!

It's a civil right.

And I think it's sad that the law is so professionalized that we cannot even conceptualize a individual taking legal action without the, what??? the "consent" of a lawyer?

Bringing a slander suit is a civil right. Hard to prove but it's still any citizen's right to make their case.

Look, I've been critical in the past when people have complained about censorship when all that was happening was criticism, that is, more speech. But this is promoting censorship, trying to prevent the other speaker from speaking.

Now, that's incisive. A juvenile perspective might also be considered. The problem with a 'focus group' is that sometimes, demurely, you don't include all the variables. What they didn't include was that the critics of the program have beenyanking on it so hard they've worn the son-of-a-bitch out.

So you're promoting a narrow definition of censorship, limited to when the government directly prevents the speech? Not when a powerful group pressures the speaker to shut up? Even when they allude to the Communications Act and try to imply that there will be consequences? Are you going to stick to that definition when the tables are turned? If not, you hypocrit! If so, you're turning your back on liberal values. Pathetic!

I haven't even been following this recent to-do.

But it's a pet peeve of mine that government censorship easily becomes translated into "a private citizen is threatening me and that is censorship!"

Well, no, if state power is not brought into it, it's not censorship.

And as you can see - I asked for a link if it is about state power.

But Berger and Clinton - they can say whatever they want. Do they have any state power? Can they shut down ABC? If so -- out line that argument and discuss that!

I'm open to the link that Drill St. listed. And in the other thread - I didn't see people upset about state power. But I did see lots of arguing about Fox versus NYTimes.

And I do think it's perfectly legitimate for a political party to protest a movie.

Note please that a political party does not equal state power.

And I'm fine with people being upset about the power of say - powerful groups. Lots of people get upset at say, the Christian Coalition, or Family Values Groups -- but I'm quite aware that a private political coalition is not the same thing as state power. And I believe those groups have every right to protest whatever they want to protest, however much I disagree with them.

I could agree on "soft power" or such -- but to call it state censorship? That's a separate argument.

1. Bringing a slander suit is a civil right. Hard to prove but it's still any citizen's right to make their case.

very hard for a "public person" like all these Clintonites are, to win slander when it must be proved that ABC knew the statement was false, that they went forward recklessly, with malice and that they weren't contributing to topics of public discourse.

2. But bringing a complaint to court is a civil right.

The judge can always throw it out if it's determined to have no merit.

Rule 11, subjects the lawyer to penalties for knowingly bringing a case without merit or presenting representations that the lawyer knew was false.

But this is promoting censorship, trying to prevent the other speaker from speaking.

I assume that you are being deliberately obtuse and understand that the freedom of speech carries with it some responsibilities. Especially when you have the right to carry speech, for free, over airwaves that are worth billions of dollars. (The whole shouting fire in a crowded theater thing). ABC no more has the right to present outright lies as "facts" than I have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater when there is none. And the management of the theater would be perfectly justified in exercising prior restraint on my little escapade before I had a chance to panic the entire theater.

Now, we did have OBL and let him go, but that was under the Bush, not the Clinton, administration.

Geoduck: Something tells me these folks would have lawyers, but in any case, unrepresented folks are bound by the rule too. It's worth reading if you think you can just file claims in court any reason:

Rule 11. ...Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. ....

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

There are sanctions for violating this rule.

So rethink what you have a right to do. And while your at it, pay some attention to those speech rights you Democrats sometimes act like you care about.

hmmm...This conversation is a little bit too hot, especially considering I'm not particularly invested in this docu-drama one way or another.

I will say - I'm interested in state censorship vs. soft power censorship vs. the censorship caused by corporations or the need for ratings on public airwave TV.

I'm also interested in slander suits - particularly those from the 19th century.

And I am interested in discussing the FCC and what it means to have public airwaves in the public interest. (Hey - if I was in charge I'd put educational TV on for most of the day. "Kids! It's time to learn your times tables!")

I'm especially interested in the mix of money, corporations, and how what is determined to be in the public interest is so piss poor. It's the public airwaves - let's get a lot of this crap off the tv.----------------

But, people are really excited about this particular docudrama. Maybe there's a little bit of projection going on?

Actually, I think a cultural analysis of the social response to this docudrama would be fascinating.

So, Freder, dramatizing a historical event with imagined scenes that offend the powerful individuals portrayed is not protected by the First Amendment; it's on the level with using speech to create a clear and present danger (eg shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a riot)? Wow, you Democrats really don't believe in rights very much. You like to preen about how much you do, but, man, you really don't.

Libel,mis-use of leaksfreedom of the pressAbsence of Malice of courseJames A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Tell you what we're gonna do. We're gonna sit right here and talk about it. Now if you get tired of talking here, Mr. Marshal Elving Patrick there will hand you one of them subpoenas he's got stuck down in his pocket and we'll go downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury... Elliot? Jim?... Fine. All right, Elving, hand whichever one of these fellas you like a subpoena and we'll go on downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury. District Attorney James A. Quinn: Gallagher's a government witness. James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Wonderful thing, a subpoena. -----------James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You had a leak? You call what's goin' on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat. ----------James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase. -----------James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: What'd you figure you'd do after government service, Elliott? Elliott Rosen: I'm not quitting. James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You ain't no Presidential appointee, Elliott. One that hired you is me. You got thirty days.

-------James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: We can't have people go around leaking stuff for their own reasons. It ain't legal. And worse than that, by God it ain't right.

So rethink what you have a right to do. And while your at it, pay some attention to those speech rights you Democrats sometimes act like you care about.

1) I thought you were a Democrat?

2) I used to call myself an Independent. Ah well.

3) I'm a 19th century person. I'm interested in stuff like the practice of private prosecution. (ie- people brought cases without lawyers.) For more on private prosecution in 19th century America, see Allen Steinberg, The Transformation of Criminal Justice (1989).

I know what rights Americans had in my time period. Perhaps we are no longer able to press slander suits? But we used to press slander suits quite a bit in America and we used to use the courts quite a bit without lawyers. (Cornelia Huges Dayton, Women Before the Bar.) You are the expert here on current law - not me. I certainly don't know anything about the 21st or even the 20th century legal practice of bringing slander cases.

But if the person bringing the claim of slander is factually correct - um - you gotta problem with that?

And in general - I'm for a capacious, not a narrow access to the court system. I love the fact that Americans, historically, have used the court system in a way that Europeans have not been able to do.

I love the way Geoduck showed up, made a lot of sharp points, and then when I called her on it, just said she couldn't answer. Had work to do. Questions too hard. Well, but you showed up and presented your questions, which I took the trouble to write about. What bullshit!

And then she drops one last turd of a question: "Maybe there's a little bit of projection going on?" Ridiculous. That's not a legitimate way to participate in the comments. You come to my blog, and I specifically engage with you individually, and you run away? Leaving one completely unsupported, insulting question? Should we waste our time engaging with that one too. This is a textbook example of bad comment behavior!

So, Freder, dramatizing a historical event with imagined scenes that offend the powerful individuals portrayed is not protected by the First Amendment; it's on the level with using speech to create a clear and present danger (eg shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a riot)? Wow, you Democrats really don't believe in rights very much. You like to preen about how much you do, but, man, you really don't.

Okay, let's stick to one very specific scene in the docudrama that has apparently caused great offense. The CIA has OBL surrounded and calls Sandy Berger on the satellite phone to get permission to "take the shot". Berger slams down the phone, refusing to give permission.

This scene, as reported from several sources, is not "dramatizing a historical event with imagined scenes", it is deliberately misrepresenting and distorting the historical record. It never happened and nothing remotely close to it ever happened and it is directly contradicted by the record.

How can you defend the airing of such a scene? What is the point of such an inflammitory and untrue assertion?

And as for this nonsense with you saying I have my pants around my ankles. I have no idea what is meant by that. I assume it is meant as an insult. I expect such childish behavior from others on this site, and will stoop to their level when baited, but really expect more maturity from you.

You also seem to think that because the show is "hard" on Condi and Bush the slander against the Clinton administration is justified. Yet when I specifically asked if any slander against Bush had been alleged is when you decided just to start talking about my pants being around my ankles.

I love the way Geoduck showed up, made a lot of sharp points, and then when I called her on it, just said she couldn't answer. Had work to do. Questions too hard. Well, but you showed up and presented your questions, which I took the trouble to write about. What bullshit!

And then she drops one last turd of a question: "Maybe there's a little bit of projection going on?" Ridiculous. That's not a legitimate way to participate in the comments. You come to my blog, and I specifically engage with you individually, and you run away? Leaving one completely unsupported, insulting question? Should we waste our time engaging with that one too. This is a textbook example of bad comment behavior!

How about Freder? Maybe he has no time left all of a sudden too.

oh please - I just read this.

1) why in the world do you sound angry?

2) Why in the world are you angry at me? I'm not leading a boycott. I'm concerned about the conflation of state censorship and all other forms of censorship. And my concern by far predates this little bloggy dust up about a docudrama.

3) I tried to explain my position and my concerns.

4) The projections -- well I find it interesting that people are calling each other names. That speaks to some sort of heat or energy that I am frankly surprised about. Mostly because i'm frankly not following this docudrama dust up.

5) ok- I'll stick around. If you have something you want me to answer or address - let me know.

One of the more interesting "sidebar" aspects of this story is the ringing defense of the Clinton Administration by the netroots and the more doctrinairre Left. For three years now (if not more) the lefties have been waging war on the DLC moderates (Lieberman, Frumm et al.) and have accused them of all types of crimes.

But in this case they are climbing over each other in their defense of Mr. DLC himself - Bill Clinton.

My guess is that they view this series as some sort of "right wing" conspiracy or machination. And if there's even a hint of conservatism in a project, they'll be against it.

Geoduck: "Of course. I am assuming that a case can be made for slander, in the case. Why would you assume that I wouldn't think this?"

Go back and read your own comments. You were saying people had a right to bring lawsuits without limitation.

Freder: Answer my question as I wrote it. If you can't see what a narrow view of free speech you are taking, how shockingly you would shackle filmmakers, you are a fool. You like to keep making personal comments about me -- as if saying I'm an idiot might make it so -- but you are blind to your own foolishness. That is the basis of the pants-down metaphor, which is very common and well understood. Would that you could understand how down yours are on this one. Absolutely, flat out pathetic.

55 comments in, and no one has made a comment along the lines (unless I skipped it)

. . . If President Clinton had yanked IT more, maybe he wouldn't have been so distracted by interns.

(and yes, this joke would depend on what your definition if IT is)

(and this joke is apropriate given that the biggest bone of contention (heh heh, he said, "bone") was whether or not the Lewinsky scandal was a distraction during Pres. Clinton's final term that kept him from pursuing terrorists with the same vigor he displayed in protecting his own hide)

On the previous comment thread about this same topic, Freder asked for a specific example. From just yesterday there was an article about a pollster pleading guilty to fraud for faking her polling. The headline (roughly from memory): Bush and Lieberman pollster guilty of fraud!

If you don't read the story you might well think that either Bush or Lieberman or both did something wrong, when actually both Bush and Lieberman may have been defrauded!!! That kind of error cannot be innocent unless the editor is a complete moron.

- reading this thread was worth it just to see Ann post "pants down around your ankles"

- there was an instance during the Clinton administration where they had a chance to toss a missile at Bin Laden, but by the time they made a decision, he had already left the area. I have no idea if this involved Sandy Berger; but they took their time and they missed the guy. Berger has a right to complain here, but there was a backstory to this-it's not something they came up with out of nowhere.

I think that there is outrage from the left about the docudrama on 3 different levels.

1. personal. The mis-attribution of actions to key Dem Celebs and storyline compression that blends multiple incidents into a dramatic scene. ignore this part for a sec. there is some level of justifiable criticism here.

2. blame for 9/11. previous 8 years versus 8 months stuff. ignore that for a bit. I think this part is fair or at least open to interpretation

3. what I don't think gets enough visibility by the public is that the show directly attacks the entire democratic strategy for fighting terrorism in the future. As Kerry put it:When . . . Kerry [was asked] what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

fundamentally Dems think that OBL and terrorists are a criminal justice matter and the GOP thinks its a war.

or Howard Dean:"There's no question that Rove was the one that leaked the information about the CIA agent's name," Dean told MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell on Friday.

But when it came to the Al Qaida terror chief, Dean insisted that bin Laden was innocent until proven guilty.

That is what the Dem's don't want on display in the show. their feckless approach to our safety, past, present and future.

My guess is that they view this series as some sort of "right wing" conspiracy or machination. And if there's even a hint of conservatism in a project, they'll be against it.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy but there is more than enough evidence that its a right wing machination. You have a film that was screened almost exclusively for right wing activists. And even when the request was put out, they refuse to screen it for the Democrats who are actually being potrayed in the film. You have a film that takes dramatic license with events that didn't happen but concern 9/11, but apparently no mention of the historical scene that will forever be linked with that day, ie "My Pet Goat."

It's apparent that they criticize at least Condi and some others from Bush's administration, but from the way it was marketed, to the people they used to help with the source material, I for one see a serious agenda. And if flaiming liberal Oliver Stone can find the decency to make a non-partisan film about such a terrible event in American history, I would think that ABC would have tried to do the same.

And even more disturbing is that the Republican knuckleheads in Congress, seeing the success of the Democratic knuckleheads, will imitate them the next time Hollywood produces a program that the Right doesn't like.

Thus is the tribalism of politics. Only problem is that those of us not full members of the tribe will suffer.

It's one thing if Horward Dean or the DNC were to come out and complain about ABC. However, having the Senate leaders issue a veiled threat to ABC on something involving political speech is very troubling. In my opinion a great percentage of the news broadcast by the networks is completely false and is political propaganda. I don't recall Bush or the Congress threatening Michael Moore or the networks for their constant slanders - I don't even recall such threats after memogate when it was clear CBS news was trying to present false facts as NEWS and not even as a docudrama.

IF ABC does well in the ratings, prepare for more "docudramas" criticisng liberals. Hollywood may have found a new market.

dklittl said... My guess is that they view this series as some sort of "right wing" conspiracy or machination. And if there's even a hint of conservatism in a project, they'll be against it.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy but there is more than enough evidence that its a right wing machination. You have a film that was screened almost exclusively for right wing activists. And even when the request was put out, they refuse to screen it for the Democrats who are actually being potrayed in the film.

It was screened at the National Press Club with 9/11 commission members from both parties in the audience. It was screened and reviewed by the NYT that thought it was pretty good.

Richard Clarke, that well known Bush fan was a technical advisor. More right wing bias?

So, Freder, dramatizing a historical event with imagined scenes that offend the powerful individuals portrayed is not protected by the First Amendment; it's on the level with using speech to create a clear and present danger (eg shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a riot)?

True, it is more akin to forcing a publisher to withdraw an unauthorized biography when it is shown that the author knowingly and maliciously includes slander in the biography. That happens often enough too.

Now answer my question. Does the ABC show actually slander Bush and Condi or just show them for the incompetent fools they actually are?

Since when is broadcast primetime TV not subject to censorship? The FCC has always told broadcasters what they can say and when they can say it. The PTC has mobilized its base to get the FCC to fine programs they find offensive. The Reagan miniseries was recently YANKED off the air because it didn't entirely flatter the Reagan presidency. Now the left is being accused of censorship? Again, since when has TV been about unadultered free speech and not ratings-driven, ad-driven, lowest common denominator programming?

Freder apparently is acting as if he were the guardian of "the Truth".

What his comments fail to appreciate is the incontrovertable fact that historical recreations are often inaccurate in detail. Their very creation relies on the all too fallible memories, perceptions, and interpretations of human beings.

Like an historian, a movie director must make selections from the varied versions of events caused by this fallibility.

Having done this he and several other commenters suggest that the attempts to get ABC to yank the show are purely private and therefore not censorship as it is commonly defined.

But that ignores implied threats to also "yank" the broadcast licenses of ABC affiliates if it does not yank the offending program. An example of this is the letter by Senator Reid and three Democrat senatorial colleagues to Disney's president.

The letter is at this link: http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&

If Michael Moore's rendering of the war on terror in Farenheit 9/11 is legitimate docudrama or documentary film making, why isn't this documentary?

Ann, I know you like identifying yourelf as a centrist, as you reek of narcisism in professing your moderation and all the attention the center supposedly brings (ala Glen Beck), but your constant tendency to prove how moderate you are and how liberals aren't so tolerant anymore, seems to suggest something else. The truth can be spoken softly and only has to be mentioned once, it doesn't have to be made into a political talking point and reiterated over and over again. Your behavior reminds me of conservative politicans who didn't serve during their time, but constantly have to stand with the military and dress themselves in fatigues to appear genuine/manly.

People engaging in the Democratic Process and threatening to boycott certain sponsors is not censorship. Christian Conservatives do it all the time to companies who have gay friendly policies, because they do not think homosexuality is compatible with morality. THey make themselves look stupid in the process, but no one accuses them of censorship.

I suppose conservatives would be angry and engage in the same process if Jay ROckefeller was the only member of the BiPartisan Commision to be consulted on docudrama that was to be aired on national television, and the piece spent more time on how Condoleeza Rice gave Bush a PDB on August 6, 2001 which was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US" (may hijack planes in the process) and how the Bush administration didn't hold a meeting on it until September 4, 2001. They also might be angry if the film focused on Dick Clarke telling the Bush administration to take terrorism more seriously, and your 2008 favorite, Condi, brushing him aside thinking he was some psycho who was obsessed with terrorism.

I would consider the GOP resolution condemning the New York Times, and Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky calling on the attorney general to investigate The New York Times for treason for announcing something Bush had already announced three years ago to come much closer to Censorship. There is a legislative force behind it, not a political force.

I am glad that as a nation, we are much more eager to get over 9/11 than relive it and have it politicized. Poll after poll establishes that most voters find Iraq to be the number one fact in influencing their vote, and a Majority of the Country now realizes that the Iraq conflict is separate from the War on Terror and had nothing to do with 9/11 (The Senate found that to be true yesterday as well). I am happy, that most americans, ealize that our taxpayer dollars are being wasted on a conflict that is further destabilizing the world and making terrorist attacks more likely in the future.

People dont buy into the brand name of conservative and liberal anymore; we long stopped drinking the Kool Aid to brand ourself as a conservative/liberal/ or moderate. People know when government is inefficent, and who has caused it to be inefficient.

That is why most of the country will probably be watching the Manning Bowl on NBC, or CSI.

Imagine MGM making a documentary blaming American politicians for Pearl Harbor and putting it in theaters in the middle of WWII, while, at the same time, Gobbels was in D.C. giving a speech at the National Cathedral and the Nazis were arming, funding, and sending soldiers to fight us while we were merely talking about sanctions against them.

Geoduck: You didn't just say a slander suit was hard to prove, you said "The judge can always throw it out if it's determined to have no merit."

That implies that it isn't the responsibility of the plaintiff to avoid filing a baseless suit. You could just file something frivolous and the judge "can always throw it out." But that isn't so. That was my point.

Hey, speaking of the 19th century, do you know why Oscar Wilde went to prison?

Paul Zrimsek: LOL.

XWL: Thanks. People are so worked up about this they can't even think of masturbation.

Brent: That's funny. I didn't remember reading that, but I must have seen it... that you wrote it. Or maybe that Freder's pants really are down around his ankles. Or maybe something about talking about Berger makes us think "pants."

Other questions I can answer?

Do I talk about my law students' pants? No, but Kingsfield in "Paper Chase" insults a student who gives a bad answer by asking him if he feels the wind blowing on his backside or something like that. So it would be traditional to say something like that. I don't do it myself. The students don't normally just call me an idiot to my face either, by the way, though I'd be surprised if they didn't sometimes when they're off on their own.

Am I a Democrat? I was registered as a Democrat when I voted in states where you have to register, but I've been reminded that we don't register for a party in Wisconsin, so I'm not, officially. I consider myself an independent these days. I don't like either party enough to call myself a member. And the reason I'm saying "Democrats" in this post is to avoid saying "liberals." I do consider myself a liberal.

The right loves censorship too. Look at how they yanked a PBS show, because it happened to have lesbians in it. Or look at how they forced a CBS show about a minister off the air, because the minister had a gay son.

I'm tired of the right-wing hypocrites saying that they oppose censorship. What complete bullshit.

It's only in the middle that you'll find people who are consistently against censorship.

Clinton is campaigning. His response is classic Carville "War Room" stuff. Sure it's heavy handed, but that's the way he plays the game, as do most of the big time pols. Shame on ABC if they cave.

Lest we forget, on Sept. 11, 2001 there was a smoking crater in lower Manhattan, a huge black hole in the Pentagon, and another airlier augured in a field in western Pennsylvania--all testament to the damn fine job we did protecting ourselves.

I love how djfeckless xeroxes off the Democratic party talking points then signs off with a weak-kneed celebration of nonpartisanship. Labels are so, like, plastic, man! The American people are so cool and moderate... that is until the poll numbers start to go the other way on our pet issues or they vote for (another) Republican for president. Then the deejay can go badmouth Americans as intolerant, stupid sheeple once again.

Anyway, you've played that DNC record one too many times- I smell a payola scandal!

One more answerable question, from Geoduck: "1) why in the world do you sound angry?"

Your use of the phrase "in the world" implies that it's really weird that I'm passionate on this topic. This is free speech, folks. This is where you are showing you don't care about it when it doesn't favor you. My question is why aren't YOU passionate? Here you are puzzled by why there is even a reason to care. You should be ashamed. I'm quite serious. So quit with the oh my, yucky, everyone's angry crap. Look at yourselves and wake up.

"I suppose conservatives would be angry and engage in the same process if Jay ROckefeller was the only member of the BiPartisan Commision to be consulted on docudrama that was to be aired on national television"

No, because Rockefeller is merely a pushover for Senator Roberts and the bipartisan commission is merely a rubber stamp for the Republican Party.

I have been informed of this fact previously and now plan to spread the word like the Ancient Mariner. All misguided souls must see the light.

The so-called liberals or progressives should be ashamed of themselves for the comments on this thread.

Ann, I heard you say on Bloggingheads.tv that you voted for Bush and Feingold in 2004 (to the almost hilarious conternation of Bob Wright!!!). Are you aware that due to the McCain-Feingold act as of this week you can no longer band together with your fellow citizens and purchase TV time or a newspaper ad to express your political views re candidates for election this November? How does that square with your principles?

Given the tenor and utter lack of reasonableness of the liberals/progressives on your blog and elsewhere aren't you having just a few second thoughts?

Hugh Hewitt makes an interesting point about this whole debate. He thinks that the whole motivation of dems is not about the few scenes with Sandy Berger et al, but to get the whole thing cancelled. Hugh says most of the story is about Ramsey Youseff and Khlid Sheik Muhammad, two bad goes currently in custody. Hugh argues that Democrats want Americans to know as little as possible about these two guys.

"The right loves censorship too. Look at how they yanked a PBS show, because it happened to have lesbians in it. Or look at how they forced a CBS show about a minister off the air, because the minister had a gay son."

I knew there had to be a way work that pet issue into it!

I'm afraid the "oh yeah, well they do it too!" is NOT an adequate or admirable position on censorship.

PBS could show anything that they want, if they didn't rely on Mom and Dad taxpayer's credit cards to pay the bills. Set yourself up as an arm of the State, and you have to play by the State's rules. It's not an analogous situation.

"I'm afraid the "oh yeah, well they do it too!" is NOT an adequate or admirable position on censorship."

We're talking about primetime broadcast TV over public airwaves with an FCC license. It is not a question of whether censorship should be allowed or not...it is a question of WHAT we should censor or not censor.

palmtree, as far as I know, nobody threatened broadcast licenses. Nancy Reagan and others as PRIVATE citizens protested a fake quote that Pres. Reagan said AIDS patients deserved to die among other things. Whoever produced it, "yanked" it...and did not whine about censorship as far as I know.

If ABC yanks this docudrama, they will be craven assholes as far as I am concerned but it will not be an example of censorship as far as I am concerned...Sen. Reid's letter is an empty threat.

"Was it okay for the Reagan miniseries from 2003 to be yanked under political pressure? If so, how is that different from Democrats trying to protect the Clinton legacy?"

It's different because, as linked in this thread, the Democrats have darkly hinted that there could be consequences regarding ABCs broadcast license.

The decision to pull the Reagan miniseries was entirely up to the network. They chose to bow to pressure from consumers and activists, but they didn't have to. The current situation is different- that the actual people portrayed in this show seem so upset about it gives the distinct impression that they're trying to hide something.

Your use of the phrase "in the world" implies that it's really weird that I'm passionate on this topic. This is free speech, folks. This is where you are showing you don't care about it when it doesn't favor you. My question is why aren't YOU passionate? Here you are puzzled by why there is even a reason to care. You should be ashamed. I'm quite serious. So quit with the oh my, yucky, everyone's angry crap. Look at yourselves and wake up.

I should be ashamed of saying that

1) slander suits are rather historic and often used in American history?

or that

2) I like the fact that Americans resolve their differences in court?

or that

3) I like there to be a specific differentiation between state power and soft power in discussions?

I said I was open to talking about the implications of state power and censorship of the TV airwaves. And I asked for links - provided by Dril Sgr., thank you.

Look - people are using the equivalent of the word "poppyhead" on this thread. I personally think that is very interesting. We are, after all, talking about a docudrama.

Usually the hot topics are stuff like abortion or gun control or the Iraq War. I am surprised that people are so angry on this thread.

And, no, I'm not passionate about the subject of this particular docudrama. I'm mildly interested.

But I fully support the rights (of everybody, no matter what view they have on this docudrama) to be passionate and complain and write letters or press lawsuits or whatever.

BTW, I agree with you that the bluenoses on the right who try to do this stuff with programs are equally mistaken.

I also agree with the commenters who suggest that many of us in the middle will have to watch to see what all of the heat was about.

Federer, the historian in you is perfectly happy with the unflattering rendition of Secretary Rice because it is, in your mind, "true".

I suspect there are those in the country, including Secretary Rice, who do not share your view. Are you again showing your butt (another expression for having your pants around your ankles) with that observation or was that your attempt at very subtle and gentle satire?

On voting for Feingold: I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but I think he's a good man, and I like having him in the Senate. He deserved reelection, and he was better than the other guy. Frankly, in Wisconsin, the Republicans don't seem to come up with good candidates. I've only voted for a Republican here once (for Tommy Thompson, once).

palmtree: Was it okay for the Reagan miniseries from 2003 to be yanked under political pressure?Yes. That was not censorship - that was the public complaining loudly and vigorously, threatening to boycott etc. Thats acceptable and I have no problem with the Left doing it to ABC's film.

If so, how is that different from Democrats trying to protect the Clinton legacy?

Because Democrat members of Congress threatened to yank ABC's license if they did not comply. Thats no different than Bush telling the NYTs to pull a story or he'll confiscatre their printing press.

Incredible how so many on the Left try to ignore that point. Its also very pathetic. These are the same people who "claim" to be all upset over privacy rights in the war on terror. I'm beginning to see that they care less about the Bill of Rights and more about sticking it to Bush.

If they Left doesn't stand up against Democrats abusing their congressional powers in censoring ABC, what do they really stand for?

For all the talk about Rule 11 and meritless cases, it doesn't seem that any lawyers would be violating professional ethics in bringing a slander case over this movie. It portrays real people, doing and saying things they did not do, in their professional capacities, in many cases to the detriment of their professional reputations. Regardless of the outcome of the case, and assuming the complaint is well drafted, these facts would seem to get past Rule 11 without any problem, and past Rule 12 and summary judgment as well.

So, why the assumption that a civil action would be meritless? All the attacks on the would-be "censors" implicitly acknowledge that something is wrong factually here, by arguing that it just doesn't matter.

It seemed as if you were talking about Democrats as if you did not identify with that party.

RE: Slander Suits

That implies that it isn't the responsibility of the plaintiff to avoid filing a baseless suit. You could just file something frivolous and the judge "can always throw it out." But that isn't so. That was my point.

I was not writing in a specific or in a clear way as to the legal practices of slander suits.

I was writing about the legal practices of bringing a case in general, sloppy terms.

If we want to be specific about this docu-drama -- then of course the public standing of the players will be legally signficant. And that would need to be addressed.

(My statement came out of my personal interest in the historic ability of residents of the US to access the courts in resolving their conflicts.)

I would have no idea how far somebody could go in a slander suit in this docudrama, because I am not familiar with the legal practices governing pulic officials & slander.

But if, say, a minor character was misrepresented. And if that minor character was not a public figure? I would support that person brining a court case if it reached the level of slander.

To clarify my previous point, does anyone really think an attorney will be sanctioned, or indeed that a defamation case will be thrown out based on the pleadings, where the only uncertain point is the speaker's reckless disregard for the truth?

I guess this is directed at Ann.

There's plenty of basis for believing, even before discovery, that ABC knew better, but ignored the truth. They had first-hand witnesses to the events on the filmmaking team!

This is where you are showing you don't care about it when it doesn't favor you. My question is why aren't YOU passionate?

Ah - perhaps I should explain.

I didn't care when the Regan show was pulled. (well - like this - perhaps mildly interested. But I was far more interested in people's reactons to the upset then the actual substantive debate.)

Quite a lot of this has to do with my opinion of what shows on the public airwaves, the role of ratings, and the role of advertisers in determining content. I am also quite dissapointed that TV airwaves are not used in the public interest, but is filled with a bunch of rather crappy semi-entertaining shows. I think the FCC contracts have been misused for decades.

I personally know literally hundreds of conservatives that feel exactly as I do, and I know that millions of them believe the same.

I did not protest the Reagan Film. I did not concern myself with trying to stop others from seeing it. In addition, CBS did not heavily promote it as a neutral film, but rather as a "story." I am not afraid of anyone being brainwashed by it.

I did not protest "Nixon" by Oliver Stone. I don't believe that it is accurate by a long shot in its conversations, but I admire the filmaking craft that went into it. And, Anthony Hopkins is incredible in it. I am not afraid of anyone being brainwashed by it.

I am, however, realistically concerned about the "brainwashing of our young people in America on a daily basis when they are presented with a supposedly "neutral" news source that presumes that every good and thinking person in America:

-)is pro-choice throughout a woman's entire pregnancy,

-)believes that those that are unconfortable with gay marriage only do so because they are bigoted and small-minded,

-)believes that those who support the Bush administration currently in Iraq are "stupid people who believe that Iraq was connected to 9/11".

That is the daily template that is served up in the majority "neutral" media in the way their news articles are written (negative headlines and first and last paragraphs that cast Bush and the GOP in anegative light) and particularly the front page "News Analysis".

It is plain wrong and leads to the further dumbing down of our citizenry and factionalizes our nation unnecessarily.

Hypocrite is a VERY serious term to me. I am already trying to not be one in areas of my life.

The question whether the Dems have the power to revoke licenses is not the point. The point is that they have shown that they support this use of government power. And so do various commenters here. I had no interest in this movie before. I'm just dismayed at how little people care about freedom of speech. The standard being asserted for movies that take on political figures is ridiculous. It needs to be possible to set out a historical interpretation in dramatized form. It shouldn't be a risky enterprise in America.

biwah said... For all the talk about Rule 11 and meritless cases, it doesn't seem that any lawyers would be violating professional ethics in bringing a slander case over this movie.

Ann and to some extent me talked about rule 11 in the context of this quote rather than the ABC case in specific:

But bringing a complaint to court is a civil right.

The judge can always throw it out if it's determined to have no merit.

As for the merits of this case, I think that Berger would be able to prove that what was presented was not accurate in a particular specific, but a disclaimer at the front of the show should protect them. They also have protection from the principle of Fair comment on a matter of public interest. Then there is the issue of discovery. Berger would not like civil discovery at all. Neither would Clinton. all and all, I think a slander case would be a net loss for Berger.

The chairman of the RNC is not an elected official. He's a party official, but he's not in the government. Can't you see the difference between sitting senators firing off thinly veiled threats about yanking licenses, and an unelected party official?

As for whether or not the Democratic senators could actually get those licenses yanked (heh), I don't know. I don't have a clue who's running the FCC, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that it's staffed by government lifers hostile to the current administration. I mean, the CIA and State Dept. have been that way throughout the Bush administration, why should the FCC be any different?

Look, you've invested your last series of posts trying to dismiss the concern about government officials threatening the licenses of a network if they broadcast a program they don't like.

You bring up these completely irrelevant examples of the Reagan film or some other event.

If you don't think goverment officials of any political party - and even if in the minority in Congress - telling a network not to broadcast a program or else their affiliates may lose their licenses is a big deal, then you've got a different concept of the First Amendment than I do.

Not anymore. Democrats in Congress may decide to yank Ann's server if they don't like the content.

Lets remember all this next time the Left starts complaing about percieved violations of civil rights. They don't really care about all that, as this demonstrates. They want one set of law for their people, another set for the rest.

But, this country is made daily LESS great by the dishonest packaging of news.

So here is the deal:Let every "news source" proclaim it's overall loyalty up front.

-AND-

let EVERYONE stop trying to persuade everyone else - particularly our young people - that the news that they see is fair and neutral.

There is an agenda behind every article. Be upfront about it.

Now - I believe so strongly in my political positions, that I am not afraid to have an "honest agenda" America like I just described. I actually believe that more of our citizenry's eyes will be opened , and that conservative positions would even more easily win the day.

Can you say the same about your side? Or do you need to keep as many in the dark about your true agendas as possible, to protect the public opinion that you believe already goes your way?

PS. I would not dissassociate myself from you just because I believe you to are bigoted and intolerant of those who feel differently than you.

"Hey, speaking of the 19th century, do you know why Oscar Wilde went to prison?"

Excellent literature reference!His lover's pa accused him of homosexuality with his son, so Wilde sued for slander not thinking they'd enforce the homosexuality laws on the books. He guessed wrong. Two years in prison was rough on an aesthete like Wilde; he died a few years after release at 46. Do I win a mixtape?!??

I have an old paperback "The Ballad of Reading Gaol" with rounded cut corners I'd not seen before. Very pleasing to see and hold, so appropriate for Wilde's tastes.

No, but Kingsfield in "Paper Chase" insults a student who gives a bad answer by asking him if he feels the wind blowing on his backside or something like that.

Ah, so you see yourself as a latter day Kingsfield. I always thought that the point of The Paper Chase was that Kingsfield was nothing but a bully and a sadist who took pleasure in tormenting and belittling his students. That in the end the hero of the movie realizes that Kingsfield is nothing but a big jerk (and probably mentally unbalanced) and a bad teacher to boot, certainly not someone to be admired, but rather pitied, nothing but a "warped, frustrated old man". That is why, at the end of the movie, he throws away his exam without even looking at the grade.

Of course, for the tv show, Kingsfield morphed into the gruff, but ultimately wise, and tough but fair, senior professor who everybody looks up to (kind of a legal Andy Roony). And that is the Kingsfield personality everybody remembers--and John Houseman parlayed into "we earn money the old-fashioned way".

"For example, I think you ARE a bigot if you oppose gay marriage. If that annoys you then don't be friends with me. I certainly wouldn't associate with you if you're against gay marriage."

Really? The only time you seem to come leave comments here is when you want to bitch about someone, or fight with someone, or call people bigots and worse when they have the temerity to disagree with you. We'd like not to be friends with you (even those among us that do support gay marriage) but you keep showing up. You're like a dog that won't quit humping our leg, and you make everything that you advocate, even the good things you advocate, seem unappealing.

"And which branch of government was Ed Gillespie a member of? Please, since you are so "informed"."

I never said Ed Gillespie was an elected politician. But he is not an average citizen either. Do you beg to differ?

"The standard being asserted for movies that take on political figures is ridiculous."

I agree. It was ridiculous when the Reagan show was pulled off the air. It is ridiculous now for this show. But I don't call political pressure to taking a program off the air unusual in any way. It's business as usual in TV land, which is completely different from print.

The Drill SGT "As for the merits of this case, I think that Berger would be able to prove that what was presented was not accurate in a particular specific, but a disclaimer at the front of the show should protect them. They also have protection from the principle of Fair comment on a matter of public interest. Then there is the issue of discovery. Berger would not like civil discovery at all. Neither would Clinton. all and all, I think a slander case would be a net loss for Berger."

And don't forget the documents Berger destroyed! That supports all kinds of inferences against him. I would love to be the lawyer thinking up the arguments there. That would be rich! If he goes on the attack, the other side will fight back. You've got to think about that before filing suit.

Remember what was in the document he admits destroying (according to the WaPo article linked in the post (and cited in the first comment): "The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an 'after-action review' prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil."

He's got a lot of nerve complaining about how he's depicted!

And call him to the stand and grill him about why he did it and what was in it.

Fenrisullivan - Yes I completely support the Democrats in having the FREE SPEECH right to argue for the yanking of ABC's license. I support 100% their right to say that.

I disagree with what they're saying. And I think they have 0% chance of actually revoking the ABC license. So I don't care. The Democrats are coming across like fools. They will cause the ratings to skyrocket, so they are shooting themselves in the foot.

But do I think the Democrats should be silenced? No - that's censorship.

Freder Frederson: "Ah, so you see yourself as a latter day Kingsfield."

Take my quote out of context and draw a conclusion that's completely not what I said? That's how you work? Well, I usually skip your comments and think I'll go back to that policy. Yank up your pants now. I'm telling you for the last time.

downtownlad: Yes I completely support the Democrats in having the FREE SPEECH right to argue for the yanking of ABC's license. I support 100% their right to say that.

Another evasion. You make no distinction between Democrats in Congress threatening to yank ABC's license and the Democrat citizens doing the same thing.

Here's a hint: one is an abuse of power and is censorship, the other is protected by the 1st ammendment.

You just can't do it, can you? You refuse to fault your fascist leaders. Its no different than if Bush threatened to close down the NYTs unless they pulled a story. Since its Congressional Democrats abusing the constitution, you're cool with that.

You're a pleasant fellow and I'm always interested in what you have to offer.

Thanks. Same to you and nearly everone else here regardless of their viewpoint.

For what it's worth, it was/is wrong for folks to pressure PBS to pull a show just because it portrays gays and lesbians as humans.

They have the right to do it; it's just not the right thing to do.

But as has been noted here ad nauseam, when public officials wielding the power of the state threaten others if they broadcast a program they don't like, that's not only not the right thing to do, they don't have the right to do it.

It needs to be possible to set out a historical interpretation in dramatized form.

You keep saying this and then turning around and insulting me every time I bring up the inconvenient fact that there are scenes in this docudrama that go beyond "historical interpretation in dramatized form" and are verifiable falsehoods and absolutely contradict historical facts.

Does slapping the "docudrama" label on it absolve ABC of any need to adhere to reality. Could they have a scene where Clinton meets OBL at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, invites him over to the White House, where they watch Ferris Bueller together, after which Clinton calls OBL the most "rightous dude I ever met, even more so than Ferris Bueller". Would such a scene still qualify as an "historical interpretation in dramatized form."

You imply, without ever coming out and saying it directly, that the only recourse that a party that knows he or she is about to be slandered on nationwide television, should be allowed is shut up until after the fact and then sue the network.

Do I have your position right, or are you just going to tell me my power rangers underwear has skidmarks and I have a bloody nose?

Does slapping the "docudrama" label on it absolve ABC of any need to adhere to reality. Could they have a scene where Clinton meets OBL at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, invites him over to the White House, where they watch Ferris Bueller together, after which Clinton calls OBL the most "rightous dude I ever met, even more so than Ferris Bueller". Would such a scene still qualify as an "historical interpretation in dramatized form.

Could they have a scene where Clinton meets OBL at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, invites him over to the White House, where they watch Ferris Bueller together, after which Clinton calls OBL the most "rightous dude I ever met, even more so than Ferris Bueller". Would such a scene still qualify as an "historical interpretation in dramatized form."

Oliver Stone and Michael Moore are on Line 1. They wish to talk with you immediately.

A few snips from the WaPo on the incident where where Berger stole 5 copies of the same Top Secret memo on terrorism in order to keep the 9/11 commission from learning what a great job the Clinton team had done.

The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.

to summarize: He stole 5 copies of the same memo that only varied in that they had margin notes by different WH staffers, or perhaps Clinton, as they were circulated. He destroyed 3 and thought that 2 versions had comments that looked good. I wonder who did the margin notes on the copies that were destroyed and what they said?

So this is the guy that thinks that he is being portrayed poorly in a fictional account of pre-9/11.

Fair comment to say that the CIA had OBL surrounded and Sandy Berger refused to allow CIA operatives to assault his hiding place when it is a documented fact this never happened and that the White House had cleared killing OBL if the opportunity arose. That all proposed operations that even had a chance to come close to tracking down OBL were rejected by Tenet (not Berger) because they were single-sourced or unreliable. Furthermore, if such an incident had occurred it would have been Tenet, not Berger who would have given final approval.

Those are the facts. ABC's little scenario is counterfactual and ridiculous.

And you are the one who made reference to obscure seventies movies and television shows that mean something only to a few law students and professors. Law professors who refer to Kingsfield are likely to make people think they admire the character. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. But you have spent all day insulting and belittling me, rather like Kingsfield took much pleasure doing to his students in The Paper Chase.

The Lefties commenting here are neglecting one fact, the Democrat Senators are using the power of the State to try to influence how something will be broadcast. It does not matter if they can or cannot follow through with the threat, the implication is: Do not harm the Clinton's or we will destroy you [Living in DC during the 90's, I heard that threat thrown to a lot of my GOP friends]. And as far as the Reagan biopic, not one Senator or House member threatened CBS -- it was local activists who got enraged. The people between the Blue States whose viewed are ignored by the networks. This is threatened censorship by the powrer of the State. INGSOC = Democrats. Big Brother = House of Clinton. Chew on that.

Freder Frederson said... Fair comment on a matter of public interest....

And you are the one who made reference to obscure seventies movies and television shows that mean something only to a few law students and professors. Law professors who refer to Kingsfield are likely to make people think they admire the character. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. But you have spent all day insulting and belittling me, rather like Kingsfield took much pleasure doing to his students in The Paper Chase.

I am not sure whether you are referring to me or Ann. I guess I should be flattered at your typical overstatement and error prone posting if it's focused at me. I've purposely ignored your rants all day, beyond the minor reference to Kingfield in the previous post. I'd just as soon not interact with you when your in full BDS mode.I don't think you are contributing much to the discussion, but WTH, we still have freedom of speech.

Desperation in Clintonville. The President that has a lackacy in history. When TV movies might have such a great impact, perhaps there is little substance in history for his Presidency. Oh how Reagan was so belittled in real time, yet history has stripped that nonsense away. Politicians are not protected by slander or liable laws. Hell, if that were the case, President Bush could shut down MSM news.

FF, Ann didn't start the Kingsfield meme, I asked her not to grill Geoduck like kingfield.

It's ok - geoducks are tough.

And I do think it's ridiculous for a Senator to threaten FCC contracts. Senators (or other people who are speaking as government officials) should be rightly popped for that, particularly over a political objection.

But, make no mistake, this docudrama sounds like horseshit to me. I have absolutely no problem with groups or individuals complaining to ABC about the drama or pressuring ABC about the movie.

That's why I draw a strong line between official state power and soft power, such as interest groups.

(And Burger isn't a representative of the state at this time. Which is why I started going on defining state censorship versus other forms of censorship.)

Wow what a thread. So far I count two people who support the democrats' efforts to suppress this movie, but claim to not really care: dtl and geo. Each have many, many posts. But guys, listen, you're the shills! They don't care!

Does anybody remember during the '90's about how the Clinton Political Office held over 200 GOP FBI files? For all the Democrat talk of civil liberties, they only care about civil liberties when it applies to them. So, Feder, did the Clinton's do right by holding the GOP FBI files and threaten their political enemies with destruction? Or is it OK because they support your cause?

Here is my favorite comment from another blog's current thread discussing the same issue:

"My Mom and sister repeatedly told my 16 yr old son in the run-up to the last election that Bush would reinstate the draft if he won. They continue to tell him that today. They also had absolutely no idea who Zarqawi was and why his death was significant. Though they live in a major media center, hold college degrees, are intelligent and watch the news daily, they do not know anything other than that Bush is very, very bad. It makes for great fun when we all get together for the holidays."

I'm tellin' ya - the left still controls what most Americans see and hear for "news", deny the fact that's it them and their agenda that they promote, and are scared to death at losing ground on a major network:

Am I the only person that does not believe that Harry Reid's letter can honestly be construed as a threat to pull ABC's license? That just seems like such an extreme interpretation. Let alone the issue of whether it would be legally permissible, it just seems a stretch to interpret a censurious (sp?) letter with a threat to revoke a broadcasting license. As I interpret the letter, it says "you have an obligation to the public interest, and broadcasting this would be irresponsible and in violation of that obligation."

Does anyone actually interpret that as a threat to revoke ABC's broadcasting license? Does anybody at ABC actually interpret it that way? I'm not saying the letter was appropriate, but I cannot see how it can realistically be interpreted as a threat, veiled or otherwise. Obviously the democrats have a right to complain, and loudly, if they don't like the characterization of their party in the film. I think people are crying wolf with respect to the spectre of government censorship.

The legislative branch can make it very unpleasant for broadcasters. The threat is veiled, but inartfully.

Imagine you're a suit at ABC, and you've got to evaluate the risk return of running this silly "docudrama" vs. the potential of a congressional hearing, should the Dems win the House this November. It was a threat, plain and simple.

As I interpret the letter, it says "you have an obligation to the public interest, and broadcasting this would be irresponsible and in violation of that obligation."

I haven't read the letter.

But if I was ABC I wouldn't be concerned about a license actually being pulled.

I'm flat out a liberal democrat and I don't like senators to go there.

Although I'm much less concerned about a political representative talking this way about the public air waves then any other type of communication media. (I'm less concerned because of the problematic history of the FCC & constant problems about the public airwaves not being used for the public interest.)

But in the scope of government abuse, this is a very mild concern of mine. And I wouldn't be upset if ABC pulled the docu-drama because of pressure from citizen groups and complaints of inaccuracies about the content.

But this thread didn't start out with a concern for state censorship.

It began as a complaint about Berger complaining. And Berger is not a state official nor does he have state power with which to threaten ABC.

but I cannot see how it can realistically be interpreted as a threat, veiled or otherwise.

Well, are you at all familiar with the games that Congress and the White House (both Parties) have engaged in over the years in granting and revoking or not renewing licenses?

There's a history here; and it's not a pretty one. Let's try not to repeat it.

Second, why even mention the licenses? Why not just say that ABC has a obligation to the public to present fair and accurate programs.

Seriously, why do you think they included the licenses reference in the letter? If I'm not mistaken, these (the Senators) are all lawyers. Or at least, I betcha' dollars to Krystal burgers that the people who drew up the letters are.

What's the purpose, in other words, of mentioning the legal obligations and licensing requirements?

Stop depending on other people to protect your civil liberties and start your own group.

If you're for free speech (and other civil liberties) - put your money, your time, and your political capital firmly behind this group.

I am quite sincere with this suggestion.

Political conservatives have depended upon liberals to uphold your civil rights. (I except the 2nd amendment here.) But you've certainly relied upon liberals to protect your constitutional rights of free speech. And you've bashed that group for political gain. (remember Dukakis - a "card carrying member of the ACLU" indeed!)

------------

And in terms of politics -- I'd suggest people stop pretending that one party should be above party politics and remove themselves from the game. (Oh - the "party of free speech")

Give me a break. The democratic party is not the ACLU. They are a political party and will always play a political game. If you want your civil liberties protected I highly suggest you do not depend upon a political party to do it for you.

People keep talking about "ABC's license," but remember ABC is a network, producing shows. The licenses belong to the affiliate stations around the country. They might decide not to run the show. I'm not sure how this changes the political analysis. Arguably, they are more vulnerable to political pressure.

I'm surprised the Democrats are willing to be so overt about applying this pressure. To me, they just look like bullies, willing to abuse power. Ironically, this makes the negative portrayal they are saying is wrong more believable. They are also giving a lot of publicity to the show and to the historical view they want to suppress. And having Berger out front on this is really strange. So strange it heightens my suspicions. I feel a new antipathy toward Bill Clinton (whom I voted for twice) and have to wonder what this says about Hillary.

And of course, now I plan to watch the show, which I wouldn't have done otherwise.

Not Michael Kinsley. I'd put him at the center or, at most, center left.

But see the Times articles about Lamont today for an example of what I'm talking about. (and I don't think it's a political problem, as much as a wierd version of gotcha-politics that isn't actually very well done.)

Why mention the license? Because the alleged obligation is an obligation that exists under the license. No, I'm not that familiar with all the 'games' that have been played with licensing over the years, but I feel pretty confident that ABC is not going to have its broadcasting license revoked over this. Maybe in communist China that might happen, but not here, and everybody from the most moonbatty liberal to the most wingnutty conservative knows that.

If I were a suit at ABC, I might be concerned about the political fallout from this - that's the reason people are protesting -- to put political pressure on the network. But that is a far, far, far cry from suggesting that anybody is claiming that ABC is somehow risking it's broadcasting license by bravely broadcasting this docudrama. It just ain't so.

I'm harping in here to point out that I too am trying to rationalize someone who is (a) passionately in favor of free speech, and (b) an eager Feingold voter. It does not make sense. Perhaps you are using the Wookie Defense.

But really, I don't think you have a leg to stand on chastising others for their less than full throated defense of the first amendment, when a man you voted for, and would presumably vote for again, ripped the heart out of it and flushed it down the toilet. Shame on you.